The present name-calling that passes for presidential campaigns is a good example of why I have been so quiet lately. First, Republican VP candidate Vance calls Kamala Harris a “childless cat lady”. Then Hillary Clinton calls Donald Trump and J. D. Vance “creepy” and “weird”. Both names (“childless cat lady” and “weird”) are unkind but, let’s admit it, Donald Trump is weird from his hair plugs and comb over to the spray tan (“Orange Man”) to his vestigial Eastern seaboard prep school honk. About Mr. Vance I couldn’t comment. I haven’t read his book or listened to him and am not particularly interested in doing so. And Kamala Harris is childless. Whether she likes cats I couldn’t say.
But is this the rhetorical level at which our political campaigning should be taking place? I recognize it’s not new and rather tame compared to some epithets that have been hurled going back 200 years. It was crude then and it’s crude now. Can’t we be better than this?
Are there no issues at stake?
Are there no issues at stake?
Yes. Who is the bigger poo-poo head.
Gee Dave. Trump started this grade school name calling almost 10 years ago and now you are concerned? Anyway, creepy and weird probably rate about a 3 on the insult scale with 1 being mildest and 10 the worst. There is always some insult exchanging. I would note that when they are aimed at a candidate by another candidate it’s kind of within historical norms. It’s when candidates insult entire groups of people, like single women, that you usually get negative reactions.
Steve
I blame the press, going for the easy quote that will win today’s flame war.
Strong competitor for article title of the year.
I guess I’m lucky that I had surgery two weeks ago and am still recovering and have not had much interest in current events.
But to me, this is all virtue signaling to the in-group, which is mostly an online and cable news phenomenon. This means the only people listening are those who are already in the tank for one side or another. IOW, much ado about nothing.
@Dave Schuler
I understand your desire to be serious, but it is not possible. Most people are philosophically inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, they have little knowledge of history prior to WW1, and they have no desire to learn. This is the elites. The plebes are worse.
I wish it were different. If you know how to change it, let me know.
Attempts to define the candidates in simple, visual ways that voters will remember.
IDT the electorate is ready for what Vance puts forward, they’re not fired up about the demographic crisis on the horizon.
Trump probably is weird to the couple from Arkansas, but his body language and facial expressions resonate with Blue collar people which itself is a bit weird given he’s from the Bronx.
Vance seems intense and angry which doesn’t help much at all.
With Harris, what’s left after the distraction of her laughter ends? An angry female prosecutor.
That and submission to the same team of handlers and Chicago pols that have been in charge since 2008.
Further evidence that the internet has (backhandedly) revealed how people really make decisions, yes?
Rationality (the seat of policy) is not just a small part, it is also the slowest part. So it is easily bypassed.
You can boost the signal of your own rationality by emotionally identifying as rational.
Unfortunately, that only works long-term (culturally speaking) when you ALSO identify emotionally with OTHER people as being rational as well, and we appear to have lost that knack as a culture.
I think that Plato would have said that the franchise should be limited to those who can subordinate their passions to their intellects. I am not that Platonic.
I think we need to raise the level of our discourse but I don’t think it can be done all at once. My approach is more Kantian. If you think the level of the discourse should be raised, raise the level of your side of the conversation.
I find the claim “they started it” weird, to coin an expression. The Democratic Party predates the Republican Party by more than 50 years. The Democrats started almost everything in politics.
Just to take one more recent example Democratic presidential candidates have been calling Republican presidential candidates Nazis since 1948. As far as I’ve been able to tell the first Republican presidential candidate to call the Democratic presidential candidate a socialist was George H. W. Bush in 1988 although presidential candidates have been calling other presidential candidates socialists since 1912. That’s a trick answer: Eugene Debs was a socialist. Maybe it’s just me but I think name-calling is pretty junior high.
“Maybe it’s just me but I think name-calling is pretty junior high.”
Yet it’s been a major part of Trump’s schtick since 2015, yet now is the first time you mention it that I can remember. TBH, it still seems weird, pardon the word, that you would consider weird as a major insult. It’s actually a mild term adults often use with each other. What is rare is the name calling that Trump engages in which really is junior high stuff. I guess calling Democrats groomers is a compliment?
Reagan suggested Kennedy’s ideas were the same as Marx back in 1960 at link and I think if you think back making claims that Democrats are pinkos is not uncommon (Nixon) and Trump has been calling Democrats communists. I looked and couldn’t find where Stevenson called Eisenhower a Nazi or Kennedy calling Nixon one.
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/27/us/on-the-record-text-of-1960-reagan-letter.html
Steve
PS- Thought occurs. Are you just trolling us in this?
Thanks for the link. I will take those data points into account going forward.
I do not troll.
steve: Reagan suggested Kennedy’s ideas were the same as Marx back in 1960
FDR was often accused of being a socialist.
The latter refers to two specific people. The former refers to millions of Americans. Childless Americans, who Vance says aren’t invested in America’s future, include Dolly Parton and George Washington.
steve: Reagan suggested Kennedy’s ideas were the same as Marx back in 1960
FDR was often accused of being a socialist.
https://time.com/archive/6764219/national-affairs-willkies-issue/
@Piercello
The emotion is fear, and due to a profound lack of primary knowledge and reasoning skills, it is irrational fear.
@Dave Schuler
Irrational fear:
By now the war hawks are beginning to realize that the Russian invasion of Europe cannot be stopped. We do not have the industrial capacity for a wartime economy, and we do not have the will to do what it would take.
Now, the Russians cannot get to the Dnieper, but they have worked themselves into a frenzy about the imminent invasion. It would not surprise me if they performed a nuclear first strike on Russia to prevent it.
Now, we have reverse-Malthusians to match the Malthusians. First the planet was going to collapse from a population explosion, and now it it going to explode from a population collapse. If VP Harris does not want children, what business is it of JD Vance. If he is that concerned, he should have four more to make up the difference.
The Earth has been around for a long time, and a few less people mean less CO2. Less CO2 will mean less government money for Green Agenda projects, and as soon as the AGW crowd realizes this, they will get to work. I expect JD Vance will change his tune.
I skim the posts at OTB, and I do not know what to think. Dr. Taylor has at least one post-graduate degree and is a professor, but if I believe his posts, he thinks Trump would be president for life. Will this be before or after he builds the wall and bills Mexico.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that most people want to gain the knowledge required. If they were brought out of Plato’s cave, they would run back to their seat and deny everything except the shadows on the wall.
I have just sat back, eaten popcorn, and chuckled.
Steve – why must your commentary be so obviously partisan. There are right leaning people who think Trump is a cad. Me included. But I think all politicians are vermin. I look through to policy. You just regurgitate left talking points. Can I interest you in some knee pads?
Your comments look straight off of Raw Story or Bulwark. High school.
We have now the predictable reinvention of Harris the ultra-lib to Harris the oh-so competent middle of the roader. Balls.
Media, again, has shown themselves as the ultimate demand for knee pads.
It will be interesting. We are not a serious people.
Dave – I think it’s always been this way. But it has worked because of distributed voting and governance. This is now under attack. Taylor over at OTB is the enemy. He wants concentration
If every Republican politician vanished from the face of the earth overnight, I genuinely believe it would have little or no effect on my daily life. Here in Illinois, at least, they are simply irrelevant. I believe that anyone who thinks that but for the mean Republicans we would have paradise on earth is naive. The Republicans are providing a service for the Democrats: plausible deniability.
Byplays of the campaign.
That now includes bypassing the primary.
As you say, it’s not new. Boss Tweed complained:
https://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/stop-those-damn-pictures/
“I believe that anyone who thinks that but for the mean Republicans we would have paradise on earth is naive. ”
Seems like a straw man to me. Who really believes that? The Democrats are pretty awful, it’s just that right now the GOP is worse. I voted exclusively for Republicans until 1992 when I voted for Clinton the first time. Then didnt vote for another Dem until Obama, but it wasn’t so much voting for Dems as against the GOP. On the undercard i always split my votes unless I personally know something about the candidates. So I voted for our GOP congressmen since I met him many times and even submitted some health care proposals to his team. Our current congressperson is a D but I know her from when she represented our hospital in litigation so I will vote for her. Since with some exceptions party affiliation isn’t as important at lower levels will keep splitting votes between the parties.
What we need is a functional GOP again. We need the balance between the two extremes of the parties. If I live long enough I fully expect the pendulum to swing and I will be back voting mostly GOP again.
Steve
I agree that the Republicans are worse.
It’s not a strawman but let me phrase it a little more kindly. It will solve nothing. If you think it will, you need to explain why Democrats did not do some of the things that need doing when they controlled both houses of Congress.
I don’t believe I’ve ever voted for a Republican for president. I voted for Obama in 2008 but not in 2012. I would have voted for him if he had tried to make good on his campaign promises in 2008 but he clearly had other fish to fry.
https://youtu.be/SbJZ8ydW40Y?si=rM6yx50Ca_l4vbZu
Dr. Phil interview with President Trump.
VERY well done and warning ??, long.
Don’t take my word for it………
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3106151/judge-joe-brown-calls-harris-a-piece-of-s-suspects-she-has-early-on-set-dementia/